LaxPower Back-Up Stick

dislaxxic wrote:

old salt wrote:Blah, blah, blah. Do you think Trump should get out ahead of our EU-NATO allies in responding to what Putin does in EUrope ?
Drag our NATO allies into a potential conflict they want nothing to do with ?

Speaking of blah, blah, blah...I'm disappointed Salty didn't use his favorite catch-word..."Euroburghers"



Burgher Meister Meister Burgher! Good thing for him, the holiday film should be running shortly...

Let's see if the EUroburghers heed the call from one of their own.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... us-ukraine

It’s hard to exaggerate the significance of what is unfolding. When I became chairman of Germany’s foreign affairs committee, in January 2014, the world was a different place. The conflict in Ukraine, the refugee crisis, Brexit and the strains in the transatlantic relationship brought by the election of Donald Trump, had not yet happened. Dealing with Russia’s violation of international norms has become a constant part of my work now. President Putin wants Russia to become a counter-model to the western-led liberal order. The destabilisation of other countries and societies has become the guiding principle of his foreign policy.

But it’s important to keep in mind that Putin isn’t acting from a position of strength – rather, from a position of weakness. Russia’s economic forecasts are poor and Putin’s approval ratings have gone down. Russia’s deep, post-cold war anxiety comes from losing influence on the global stage and especially in eastern Europe. This was the inevitable consequence of the emancipation of the former Soviet republics. Russia feels cornered and is trying to halt its own decline by using the last means at its disposal: military power and control over access to energy resources.

The EU needs to maintain dialogue with its large eastern neighbour, for otherwise there will be no peace in Ukraine

As western Europeans, we have to acknowledge our part in this: we did not take Russia’s concerns seriously enough. I remember wondering in early 2014 how we might best address Russia’s nervousness concerning the planned association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. What happened later showed that the west had completely underestimated what Ukraine’s rapprochement with the west would mean to Russia.

Since the EU’s 2004 enlargement to the east, Russia has watched one country after another in its neighbourhood affiliate itself with western Europe, and benefit politically and economically from that. Meanwhile Russia was failing to modernise and rebuild its sway. By 2011, along with the presidents of Belarus and Kazakhstan, Putin had signed an agreement to set up a Eurasian Economic Union – designed as a counter‑model to the EU. “Losing” Ukraine – a natural candidate for the EEU – was obviously too much for Russia to bear.

I’m certainly not trying to defend Russia’s military aggression in any way – Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to decide which alliances it wants to join. The EU was right to support that process from the beginning. But it was certainly naive for the west to assume that Russia would simply accept such developments.

What has to be done now? We can no longer rule out further Russian aggression, for example on the coastline of the Sea of Azov, designed to open a land route to the Crimean peninsula. Above all, the EU’s response must be coherent and unanimous: our greatest strength lies in our unity. Military means are out of the question, but all measures short of war should be taken into account.

First of all, Russia must immediately release the Ukrainian ships seized near the Kerch Strait and their crews. One good sign is that Russia has now reopened the Kerch Strait for Ukrainian ships. But freedom of navigation in the Sea of Azov must be guaranteed at all times. Next, the 2015 Minsk agreement aimed at resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine must be implemented promptly by both sides. Without that, it won’t be possible for us to cut back on existing sanctions.

Putin is profiting from chaos in Ukraine – and the west is letting him

But we must go further: Germany in particular must urgently reconsider the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. I’ve long been a critic of this plan, aimed at building an alternative to existing transit routes for energy through eastern Europe. Nord Stream 2 is hardly a purely commercial project; it has strong geopolitical implications. Building permits have already been granted by all the European states involved – with the exception of Denmark – so stopping the project has become even more difficult. At the very least, Russia must guarantee that gas transits through Ukraine will continue. Meanwhile the EU must ensure Russian gas pipelines on its territory comply with the bloc’s competition rules. Here again, Germany must act: my country should abandon its veto on a planned reform of the EU’s gas directive.

One thing is clear – there are no quick solutions to tensions between Europe and Russia. The EU needs to maintain dialogue with Russia, for otherwise there will be no peace in Ukraine. In dealing with Putin, we need strategic patience and, where possible, must identify common interests. Europeans have perhaps been too naive in the past, but if we stick together we can tailor policies that will work for the future.

• Norbert Röttgen is chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the German Bundestag

Yawn.

Here's why Trump needs to be able to have a bi-lateral summit meeting with Putin.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... inf-treaty
https://www.rferl.org/a/bolton-trump-pu ... 55471.html

Trump will have to take along Adam Schiff, Lindsey Graham & Bob Mueller, to sit in & verify there's no colludin' or quid pro quo.

old salt wrote:Here's why Trump needs to be able to have a bi-lateral summit meeting with Putin.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... inf-treaty
https://www.rferl.org/a/bolton-trump-pu ... 55471.html

Trump will have to take along Adam Schiff, Lindsey Graham & Bob Mueller, to sit in & verify there's no colludin' or quid pro quo.

Odd, your citation has a different reason than Mueller as to why the two didn't meet....

Mr Trump pulled out at the last minute in response to November 25 clashes off the coast of Crimea when Russian special forces seized three Ukrainian naval vessels and captured 24 sailors accused of illegally entering Russian waters.

You understand that your whole theory that Trump can't meet and deal with Putin because of Mueller goes right if the window if, you know, Putin and Trump meet and negotiate, right?

Right? Or are you going to pull the football away from me again and tell me that a meeting doesn't count?

They were only going to have a brief bi-lat meeting at the G20, not a summit.
But thats ok, make of it what you wish. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll restate it for me.
It's not worth the trouble to try to explain.

When Putin releases the ships & the sailors, should Trump take up Putin's invitation for a summit ?
Any successful negotiation requires concessions.
Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised,
...unless Mueller has cleared him of collusion by then ?

old salt wrote: Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised,
?

No. And Mueller won't change that.

How about this, so that when it happens, you're finally on the record: what is Mueller preventing Trump from doing? Sitting down with Putin to discuss the Ukraine, right?

Ok. So if Mueller keeps right on investigating....yet Putin meets with Trump to discuss the Ukraine, you'll be wrong. That would mean that no, Mueller isn't keeping Trump from executing foreign policy with Russia.

Nice and simple. Cut and dry. Politely explained.

a fan wrote:

old salt wrote: Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised,
?

No. And Mueller won't change that.

How about this, so that when it happens, you're finally on the record: what is Mueller preventing Trump from doing? Sitting down with Putin to discuss the Ukraine, right?

Ok. So if Mueller keeps right on investigating....yet Putin meets with Trump to discuss the Ukraine, you'll be wrong. That would mean that no, Mueller isn't keeping Trump from executing foreign policy with Russia.

Nice and simple. Cut and dry. Politely explained.

You're wrong & your "how about this " restatement was not my question.
The question was -- Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised ?

I say no, unless Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion.
If that happens, Trump can negotiate from a position of strength with Putin & count on (R) support in Congress.
At that point, any accusers can be told to pound sand, because Mueller cleared him after a 2 yr+ exhaustive investigation.
Without that, Trump is (imho) in too weak a position to negotiate effectively with Putin.

old salt wrote:Here's why Trump needs to be able to have a bi-lateral summit meeting with Putin.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... inf-treaty
https://www.rferl.org/a/bolton-trump-pu ... 55471.html

Trump will have to take along Adam Schiff, Lindsey Graham & Bob Mueller, to sit in & verify there's no colludin' or quid pro quo.

Alternatively, Der Leader and Vlad could have a private meeting with no aides and no record, much less readout.

And, oh yeah, then come out of the private meeting and say to the world that he believes Putin over the American IC for which he, himself, is responsible.

We already know which scenario Trump would prefer.

"rapprochement"

old salt wrote:

a fan wrote:

old salt wrote: Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised,
?

No. And Mueller won't change that.

How about this, so that when it happens, you're finally on the record: what is Mueller preventing Trump from doing? Sitting down with Putin to discuss the Ukraine, right?

Ok. So if Mueller keeps right on investigating....yet Putin meets with Trump to discuss the Ukraine, you'll be wrong. That would mean that no, Mueller isn't keeping Trump from executing foreign policy with Russia.

Nice and simple. Cut and dry. Politely explained.

You're wrong & your "how about this " restatement was not my question.
The question was -- Can Trump make any concessions without being accused of collusion & being compromised ?

I say no, unless Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion.
If that happens, Trump can negotiate from a position of strength with Putin & count on (R) support in Congress.
At that point, any accusers can be told to pound sand, because Mueller cleared him after a 2 yr+ exhaustive investigation.
Without that, Trump is (imho) in too weak a position to negotiate effectively with Putin.

Or...he's "in too weak a position to negotiate effectively with Putin" because:

1) he's compromised by secrets Vlad knows about Trump's embarrassments, illegalities, and "collusion" ("too weak") or
2) he's too dumb, doesn't read his briefings, and, yet, believes he knows more than the generals, the IC, everyone. ("negotiate effectively")

So, if Mueller does find and ultimately demonstrate that Trump himself, not just his lackeys, has been compromised by Putin (we already know he was lying about doing a deal in Moscow and directing lying about the purpose of the Trump Tower mtg ) and that he welcomed Putin's help with the election, and illegally accepted $ from all sorts of foriegn folks , etc, etc...is that Mueller's fault or Trump's (and all who supported him)?

MDLF76 wrote :
Or...he's "in too weak a position to negotiate effectively with Putin" because:

1) he's compromised by secrets Vlad knows about Trump's embarrassments, illegalities, and "collusion" ("too weak") or
2) he's too dumb, doesn't read his briefings, and, yet, believes he knows more than the generals, the IC, everyone. ("negotiate effectively")

So, if Mueller does find and ultimately demonstrate that Trump himself, not just his lackeys, has been compromised by Putin (we already know he was lying about doing a deal in Moscow and directing lying about the purpose of the Trump Tower mtg ) and that he welcomed Putin's help with the election, and illegally accepted $ from all sorts of foriegn folks , etc, etc...is that Mueller's fault or Trump's (and all who supported him)?

Of course. Based on what you post, Trump will always be too compromised to negotiate with Russia, no matter what Mueller brings.
But I don't really care what you think. I'm talking about what Trump needs to get support in Congress, especially from the (R)'s.
Bolton's an experienced arms negotiator. Mattis & Pompeo are Russia hawks. INF is out of date & needs to be renegotiated.
Any hope for rapprochement died with the sanctions Congress forced Trump to sign & Putin has responded accordingly.
We're back to playing by Cold War rules again. They've given up hope on Trump as an ally. They see him as a Deep State captive now.
There are already Russian nuc capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad.
The world spins on, nothwithstanding our silly political games.

I wonder If Russia did not want this investigation to complete, would they have sent in plutonium sandwiches for lunch to Mueller and his select few by now!
Anyone catch Putin’s STASI ID card that was uncovered in a German vault last week?

Report for the Burr-Warner Senate Committee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... aea6281b16

"The new report offers the latest evidence that Russian agents sought to help Trump win the White House. Democrats and Republicans on the panel previously studied the U.S. intelligence community’s 2017 finding that Moscow aimed to assist Trump, and in July, they said investigators had come to the correct conclusion. Despite their work, some Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to doubt the nature of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

The Russians aimed particular energy at activating conservatives on issues such as gun rights and immigration, while sapping the political clout of left-leaning African American voters by undermining their faith in elections and spreading misleading information about how to vote. Many other groups -- Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, southerners, veterans -- got at least some attention from Russians operating thousands of social media accounts.

The report also offered some of the first detailed analyses of the role played by YouTube, which belongs to Google, and Instagram in the Russian campaign, as well as anecdotes on how Russians used other social media platforms -- Google+, Tumblr and Pinterest -- that have gotten relatively little scrutiny. The Russian effort also used email accounts from Yahoo, Microsoft’s Hotmail service and Google’s Gmail.

The authors, while reliant on data provided by technology companies, also highlighted their “belated and uncoordinated response” to the disinformation campaign and, once it was discovered, for not sharing more with investigators. The authors urged the companies in the future to provide data in “meaningful and constructive” ways.

Facebook, for example, provided the Senate with copies of posts from 81 Facebook “Pages” and information on 76 accounts used to purchase ads, but did not share the posts from other user accounts run by the IRA, the report says. Twitter, meanwhile, has made it challenging for outside researchers to collect and analyze data on its platform through its public feed, the researchers said."

But we should be friends.

seacoaster wrote:Report for the Burr-Warner Senate Committee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... aea6281b16

"The new report offers the latest evidence that Russian agents sought to help Trump win the White House. Democrats and Republicans on the panel previously studied the U.S. intelligence community’s 2017 finding that Moscow aimed to assist Trump, and in July, they said investigators had come to the correct conclusion. Despite their work, some Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to doubt the nature of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

The Russians aimed particular energy at activating conservatives on issues such as gun rights and immigration, while sapping the political clout of left-leaning African American voters by undermining their faith in elections and spreading misleading information about how to vote. Many other groups -- Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, southerners, veterans -- got at least some attention from Russians operating thousands of social media accounts.

The report also offered some of the first detailed analyses of the role played by YouTube, which belongs to Google, and Instagram in the Russian campaign, as well as anecdotes on how Russians used other social media platforms -- Google+, Tumblr and Pinterest -- that have gotten relatively little scrutiny. The Russian effort also used email accounts from Yahoo, Microsoft’s Hotmail service and Google’s Gmail.

The authors, while reliant on data provided by technology companies, also highlighted their “belated and uncoordinated response” to the disinformation campaign and, once it was discovered, for not sharing more with investigators. The authors urged the companies in the future to provide data in “meaningful and constructive” ways.

Facebook, for example, provided the Senate with copies of posts from 81 Facebook “Pages” and information on 76 accounts used to purchase ads, but did not share the posts from other user accounts run by the IRA, the report says. Twitter, meanwhile, has made it challenging for outside researchers to collect and analyze data on its platform through its public feed, the researchers said."

But we should be friends.

The Russian’s pulled a fast one on us. No big deal.

Fast one on us ? Only the stupid ones.

Did they steal our personal data or military tech & design secrets ?
By that standard, we should be at war with China
Good luck policing social media.

old salt wrote:Fast one on us ? Only the stupid ones.

Did they steal our personal data or military tech & design secrets ?
By that standard, we should be at war with China
Good luck policing social media.

The stupid ones are the vast majority of Americans. “They” as in Russians did steal personal data....who said anything about war? No big deal...ol’ Vlad and the GRU were just funnin’ us.

Yes, we're a nation of victims.

old salt wrote:Yes, we're a nation of victims.

Yep. Only dumb people are victims. We are full of them.

old salt wrote:

MDLF76 wrote :
Or...he's "in too weak a position to negotiate effectively with Putin" because:

1) he's compromised by secrets Vlad knows about Trump's embarrassments, illegalities, and "collusion" ("too weak") or
2) he's too dumb, doesn't read his briefings, and, yet, believes he knows more than the generals, the IC, everyone. ("negotiate effectively")

So, if Mueller does find and ultimately demonstrate that Trump himself, not just his lackeys, has been compromised by Putin (we already know he was lying about doing a deal in Moscow and directing lying about the purpose of the Trump Tower mtg ) and that he welcomed Putin's help with the election, and illegally accepted $ from all sorts of foriegn folks , etc, etc...is that Mueller's fault or Trump's (and all who supported him)?

Of course. Based on what you post, Trump will always be too compromised to negotiate with Russia, no matter what Mueller brings.
But I don't really care what you think. I'm talking about what Trump needs to get support in Congress, especially from the (R)'s.
Bolton's an experienced arms negotiator. Mattis & Pompeo are Russia hawks. INF is out of date & needs to be renegotiated.
Any hope for rapprochement died with the sanctions Congress forced Trump to sign & Putin has responded accordingly.
We're back to playing by Cold War rules again. They've given up hope on Trump as an ally. They see him as a Deep State captive now.
There are already Russian nuc capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad.
The world spins on, nothwithstanding our silly political games.

I'll assume you mean "Of course" it is Trump's fault, not Mueller's.

So, is the lack of opportunity for "rapprochement" Obama's (or Congress') fault for instituting sanctions, or Putin's fault for invading Crimea, poisoning people on foreign soil, killing journalists, and an active measures campaign to meddle in US elections (and others throughout Europe)?

Sure, we can and should negotiate with Russia, but "rapprochement" with Putin in specific can only be in areas where we have common interests, not where we are so clearly divergent.

Randy, you need to get over it and realize that Putin is America's enemy and always will be. Period.

Stop arguing for "rapprochement" or any other word meaning "appeasement".

Stop arguing for "rapprochement" or any other word meaning "appeasement".

That's really the nub, isn't it. Randy and people that think like him really ARE the Chamberlains of the 21st Century. Appease the Russian Bear because those mean sanctions are misguided and not useful when the very serious people have to interact.

..

MDLF76 wrote :
Randy, you need to get over it and realize that Putin is America's enemy and always will be. Period.

Stop arguing for "rapprochement" or any other word meaning "appeasement".

So was Stalin, Kruschev, & all the Soviet leaders who kept dying on Reagan.
Yet we still had a working relationship with them, negotiated arms control, disarmament, military de-escalation, anti-terrorism, intel sharing & were even WW-II allies.

You need to get over the fact that Trump won the election because he was the better candidate & we have to survive his Presidency.
Our irrational Russophobia is just political sour grapes. Russia only wins if we let them.